Social Commentary & A Bit Of Poetry On The Side

Menu

Throwing Out The Baby With The Bathwater

While watching NBC’s Bionic Woman last night (I know, hell of a way to start a post, right?), Isaiah Washington’s “faggot” debacle a few months ago resurfaced in my mind. And I have to tell you that I think we, “the gays,” may have gone a bit overboard. Crucified him for the cause, if you will. We were so damned MAD, we are so damned TIRED of hearing it, that we collectively snapped. While I think that’s an understandable initial reaction, I don’t think it can be sustained indefinitely without applying some perspective.

Yes, it was a hurtful thing to say, and an apology was deserved. And while some would say it was dragged out of him, Mr. Washington did indeed apologize and attempt to make public amends. Some would also say he “didn’t mean his apology.” I fail to see how that matters one whit. You can never honestly tell if someone “means” or “feels” something about any issue, you can only tell if you feel that they meant it. So it’s completely subjective, and I think a bit hypocritical to completely disregard any apology. No matter how you or I may “feel” about it.

I’d like you to take a moment and try to remember what it was like when you were still in the closet. I know that at least some of you must’ve been like me: overcompensating for your inner queer by being the most vocally antigay person in the room. The whole, “methinks he doth protest too much” persona, you know? Not that such behavior was right in any way–because it most certainly wasn’t–but I just want you to try and remember the mindset of the heteros you were trying so very hard to fit in with. Knowing how much I was willing to denigrate myself in order to be one of the (straight) guys, I find it hard to hold a grudge against someone who really is one of them. His remarks are, at least from my remembered experience, quite usual for his age group.

Yes, we should work to change that. But making people like Isaiah Washington realize how hurtful such things are is going to take effort, time, and repeated examples. Which is why his apology should be accepted, even embraced by the gay community, with the knowledge that it may be half-hearted, or it may not–we can’t know for sure–but at least it’s a baby step in the right direction. Ten years ago there wouldn’t have been an apology at all. Instead, the gay community–myself included–tried to crucify the man. When he repeated the word “faggot” at an awards ceremony we all went apeshit, even though it was a completely different circumstance than the on-set fight that started the whole thing.

I remember all too well the awful things I said about gays before I was willing to identify as one, and I also know that there are many times when I’ve said something that I felt was perfectly innocent that pissed a number of people right off, at which point the only thing I could do was apologize and hope for forgiveness. It seems to me that Isaiah did just that, and we should give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean think about it: there’s a reason that we perpetuate the stereotype of “bitchy queen” among even ourselves. It’s true. God knows there are times when I’m pretty damned menstrual (NDT, QUIT NODDING). For all of the empathy that we try to obtain from the straight community, we queers can be a stubborn and unforgiving lot. When we want change, we want it NOW. How petulant. How childish. How bitchy. Societal change for the better is never immediate. You’d think such a highly educated crowd could learn that lesson.

History shows that those who advocate “all or nothing” usually end up with the latter. I was reminded of that by the very first paragraph of a Washington Post article this morning:

There’s a saying in Congress about passing legislation: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The transgender community is learning that lesson the hard way.

In our discussions about ENDA, it occurs to me that our increasing level of comfort with ourselves and advocating our rights has come at the cost of disassociating ourselves from the realities of living in a hetero-dominated society. As Andrew Sullivan, The Malcontent(s) , and others have been saying, while we queers may feel empathy for the transgender community, we don’t necessarily identify with them, and don’t think we should stop our battle for equal protections to pick up hitchhikers along the way. But once again the usual suspects have thrown up their arms in disgust, and cast petulant glares at those who would dare to dissent from within. Barney Frank, who originally introduced the Trans-inclusive legislation, is now the one being crucified–branded a traitor–because he’s decided to try and get a less controversial version passed because the all-inclusive version was going down in flames. How bitchy. How childish. How . . . expected. And how quickly we seem to forget how much worse off we were only ten years ago.

When we talk about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” we almost immediately get into a conversation about how unfair it is without regard to what came before it. DADT is indeed an unfair policy, but it’s a damned sight better than the prior policy, where you COULD be asked your orientation and then dishonorably discharged for it. DADT isn’t perfect, and should be changed, but at least it was a step in the right direction. And so is a non-trans-inclusive ENDA. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.

We should take a step back for a moment and realize what progress we’ve made so far in order to recognize our next steps forward. Ten or fifteen years ago, gay men were just beginning to be recognized as something other than freaks in the mind of the typical American. And in the mind of that stereotypically macho American male, “Transgender” equates with “wants to chop his own penis off.” It may not be fair, but that’s the mindset. And while we can help our Trans brothers and sisters to fight the preconceived notions that bedevil them, we don’t have to abandon our own fight for equality along the way.

I’m not heartless. I truly feel very bad that there is such opposition to a trans-inclusive ENDA, but in talking to many of my straight acquaintences and re-examining my own past, I have to honestly acknowledge where that opposition comes from. And I have to acknowledge that while both battles are worthy to be fought, they are not one and the same.

Post navigation

67 thoughts on “Throwing Out The Baby With The Bathwater”

The problem with Isaiah Washington wasn’t necessarily the fag remark. I hear fag in a variety of contexts, and being the generally easy-going type I am, it rarely rankles.

It was the entire context of the affair that finally turned me against him.

He said the word not in a off-handed derisive way, but in an anger-filled moment following a physical altercation with a co-worker. That context makes me lift an eyebrow. The result of that was that he outed his co-worker to the nation. Strike one.

He then lied about what was said while repeating the word on national television. Strike two.

He apologized and did the requisite genuflecting in front of GLAAD and others. However, once he lost his job, he seemed to take it all back, instead latching onto Jasmine Cannick’s old canard about how the gay establishment is full of racist, white males. Strike three. He’s outta there.

Using the word fag is a forgivable offense, IMO. But the man surrounded that use with a months-long festival of assholery, and that’s what broke that particular camel’s back for me. My problem wasn’t necessarily with the word. It was with the man.

Unfortunately, the gay community’s problem was with the word, because they’re Pavlovian like that. They haven’t the tools to really understand context, subtlety, or when to pick and choose their battles. (See: Snickers controversy). And the fact there’s an actual phrase called “the Snickers controversy” says all we need to know about their ability to separate the worthy fight from the unworthy.

Which is where we are with ENDA. The problem with ENDA is that the activists and organizations agitating for an all-or-nothing approach don’t live in the real world. While you refer to them as educated, I’m not sure I would agree with that statement. Especially not those activists steeped in social sciences like queer theory and LGBT studies. That’s less an education and more a codification of their deeply held emotional disorders born of a desperate need to cling to their perpetual victim status. They have a whole host of ideas about the world that no one but a professional activist and/or victim could possibly believe.

So when it comes time to judge what the average, uninvolved gay American might need to make their lives better, they are utterly unequipped to make that judgement. They have no idea. They live in liberal enclaves where their every grief, slight, and discomfort is addressed and legislated against. They can afford to fight a battle on the purely philosophical level because they don’t even exist on the material plane with the rest of the average gays.

Principles are a luxury, and radical principles are the domain of the spoiled. Gay activists are spoiled by their positions of power, their insulation from any real consequence. They’ll never be fired, so they can draw this fight out as long as they wish. It would be as if I picked a fight with the local school board over education. I have no kids. No matter how it turns out, it’s not going to personally affect me. So I can be as unbending and idiotic and argumentative as I please.

If Matt Foreman or any other gay involved in this worked for an oil refinery in Texas, they would be begging gay groups to let an orientation-only ENDA pass. But they don’t care, because they don’t have to care. The child who has everything wants more.

He just doesn’t understand that some children don’t have everything he has. Most activist gay liberals don’t understand that other gays in the rest of the country don’t have what they have. That’s why they shouldn’t be in positions of power to begin with. They don’t speak for us. Hell, they barely speak for themselves half the time.

I think it comes down to the idea that those who most want to be gay activists are precisely the kind of people who have no business being gay activists.

To devote your life to your sexual orientation necessitates a disproportionate emotional investment. I have to say, I don’t think very much about my homosexuality in day to day life. It’s fun, it’s interesting, but it’s not My Life. I don’t carry it with me like the spiritual twin I never had. I don’t relate to the rest of the world solely through that connection.

The activists do. They are looking for gay connotations in all things. All words spoken, politics held, behaviors displayed are always taken in and judged with a high gay consideration content. That’s how the Snickers controversy happened. I saw it, I thought it was funny in a very stupid kind of way. I also thought “Uh oh,” because the eternally offended were no doubt on the case. They look for homophobia, for justifications of their worldview, for opportunities bring out their orientation for an airing. It’s how they filter all things.

They never got over being gay. Ever. Most of us grow up, come out, integrate our orientation into our lives, and move on to an emotionally balanced and healthy state. The concentration on one’s sexuality, the obsession with it, the allowing it to overtake and control one’s entire life is the surest mark of a person who hasn’t integrated it, who hasn’t worked it out.

When you have a high emotional investment combined with a concrete determination to uncover all of life’s subtext as it relates to homosexuality, you’re not in a position to use a lot of logic, reason, and critical thinking. What these people lack is judgement, because they haven’t the wisdom or the life experience to weigh the important from the unimportant. Everything gay-related is Relevant for them. Their identities are hinged on all things homosexual in culture and society. They are easily wounded, easily outraged, and easily intolerant because they are constantly reacting to the world around them.

Reacting is what a child does. You’re right. They’re petulant, they’re demanding, they don’t understand how adult politics work, and they think everyone on planet earth hates them. I’ve seen more emotional evolution in a fourteen year-old, to be quite honest.

That’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? There’s a large atmosphere of “I’m so persecuted . . ” And anything that is potentially related is now a hot button issue for them to mindlessly press on with. Regardless of what the actual consequences may be.

And ENDA’s degree of “inclusivity” is just one more facet of that mindset. No one is saying “don’t keep fighting for Trans rights”–but that’s what Barney Frank is being basically accused of. We can take one step forward and be ready to fight our way up the stairs with some momentum–but no. We are told we must have all or nothing.

“Unfortunately, the gay community’s problem was with the word, because they’re Pavlovian like that. They haven’t the tools to really understand context, subtlety, or when to pick and choose their battles.”

Robbie, context is a term used to defend one’s belief in the indefensible. When people demonstrate bigoted attitudes and use bigoted slurs, there is no context outside of denigrating the group they are throwing slurs at. Subtly is a cowards term used to discredit those who pursue the bigots, while those who enjoy rights fought for by others sit on the sidelines. Choosing a batle is only helpful, when there is a consensus on what battles we should pursue. People like you cop a wait and see attitude that brings about nothing but the status quo. Advancement only comes through challenges.

“The problem with ENDA is that the activists and organizations agitating for an all-or-nothing approach don’t live in the real world.”

Neither do you, Robbie. You live in a shielded enclave known as DC where nothing moves but at a snails pace.

“Especially not those activists steeped in social sciences like queer theory and LGBT studies. That’s less an education and more a codification of their deeply held emotional disorders born of a desperate need to cling to their perpetual victim status.”

This coming from the man who wrote, “We’re all about protecting, preserving and advancing this endangered species known as a non-dogmatic, non-Left-servile gay man.”

Homocons, not content with being a sexual minority, felt it necessary to cop a more populist minority status, that of male conservative. Your inability to mingle within the gay community, caused your flight to kick in and your instinct was to run to a larger camp. Yet, you took your feeling of victim hood and it was absorbed, and embraced by a majority. I find it odd that a man such as yourself who wallows in victim hood daily, would point an accusing finger at people who suffer.

“They have a whole host of ideas about the world that no one but a professional activist and/or victim could possibly believe.”

The only people who don’t see the validity in their ideas or views are people who wrap themselves in an open closet, Robbie.

“So when it comes time to judge what the average, uninvolved gay American might need to make their lives better, they are utterly unequipped to make that judgement.”

Essentially what you’re saying is gay activists are wrong for viewing American LGBTQ’s as intelligent and homocons are correct in viewing, “the average, uninvolved gay American” as ignorant and unable to decide for themselves what their life needs. That’s mighty conservative of you, Robbie. I’m sure, “the average, uninvolved gay American” is much more involved and a lot less average than you believe. I find it amusing that a wealthy, white collar city gay would lecture others on what American gay in other parts of the country are thinking.

“They live in liberal enclaves where their every grief, slight, and discomfort is addressed and legislated against.”

Pot, kettle, kettle, pot. Pleased to meet you.

“They can afford to fight a battle on the purely philosophical level because they don’t even exist on the material plane with the rest of the average gays.”

Again, you are using average as a slight against non-metro gays.

“radical principles are the domain of the spoiled.”

Only in a Bush America would any form of principles be viewed as radical.

“Gay activists are spoiled by their positions of power, their insulation from any real consequence. ”

Gay activists are prepared to fight and do battle for what needs to be accomplished for all Americans. Gay activists take the brunt of all consequences by being on the front lines. They’re willing to take a hit so that others can enjoy the freedoms fought for.

“They’ll never be fired, so they can draw this fight out as long as they wish.”

Based on what evidence, Robbie? Do you have any stats that demonstrate that city gays are less likely to experience job loss based on sexuality, than rural gays?

“If Matt Foreman or any other gay involved in this worked for an oil refinery in Texas, they would be begging gay groups to let an orientation-only ENDA pass.”

Hmmm…Since oil companies are international concerns and represent shareholders and a plethora of groups within and without their company, it’s safe to say that an oil refinery worker is safer than say, a member of a Church board, school board, or local organizatuons with a top heavy anti-gay conservative, or anti-gay religious slant.

“But they don’t care, because they don’t have to care. The child who has everything wants more.”

They do care. They are the child who has something and wants others to have the same things, that is why they fight. Homocons who oppose an inclusive ENDA are the spoilt brat with everything, who wants others to have nothing–essentially, you’ve got yours, screw everyone else. The very fact that some people in the LGBTQ community will have something and others will have nothing, is why gay activists are fighting for an inclusive ENDA.

“He just doesn’t understand that some children don’t have everything he has.”

What exactly do gay activists have today, that other gays don’t have, Robbie? You’ve created this imaginary world where liberal gays have everything and non-lib gays have nothing. Currently, no gays has federal protections, outside of the federal employees. If people are willing to give up their own rights to include an unpopular group, they should be understood, not vilified.

“Most activist gay liberals”

I’m glad you’ve made the distinction, Robbie. Gay activists are liberals because homocons have done nothing for the gay equal rights movement. We fight, you bitch and moan and then enjoy the freedoms we fought for.

“don’t understand that other gays in the rest of the country don’t have what they have.”

“That’s why they shouldn’t be in positions of power to begin with. They don’t speak for us. Hell, they barely speak for themselves half the time.”

And homocons speak for no one. If it weren’t for gay activists, Robbie, you’d be in a loveless marriage, treating your wife like property and hanging around public toilets harassing straight men. In other words, a conservative.

“I think it comes down to the idea that those who most want to be gay activists are precisely the kind of people who have no business being gay activists.”

You can’t have a party if no one comes, Robbie. It’s clear homocons are either too addle brained, week kneed, or just don’ have the balls to fight for equality. Someone had to have the guts to stand up for equality and liberal gays took the challenge. If you want to be included in the debate, the stand up and be counted, rather than standing in the wings sniping.

And to carry your closet around, with the door swinging open, lambasting those who have tossed off their closet also takes an emotional toll. To negate this, homocons attack the very group they are a part off, as if it’s our fault you have trouble fitting into to two worlds. You attack gays because we’ll still accept you as you are, warts and all. Attacking straights would be a death knell to your desperate desire to fit in and assimilate and god knows a straight person wouldn’t out up with your bullshit the way a gay person will.

“I have to say, I don’t think very much about my homosexuality in day to day life.”

Your entire blog is built around your sexuality, Robbie. Unless you mean you’re not thinking whet you post.

“It’s fun, it’s interesting, but it’s not My Life.”

Neither are your politics, yet you wrap yourself in the conservative blanket of dogma and ideals like a Sucre in times of whiny victim hood.

“The activists do.”

So do black activists and Jewish activists and women activists and religious activists and political activists. Are we all bad for doing this, Robbie?

“They are looking for gay connotations in all things. All words spoken, politics held, behaviors displayed are always taken in and judged with a high gay consideration content.”

Viewing life through a gay lens is not absurd, or even unusual. It starts when we’re kids and we watch the world and filter it thought our closet to avoid outing ourselves, or giving anyone the idea that we might be gay. After we come out, we carry that same lens throughout our lives for the same reason you view your sexuality, “It’s fun, it’s interesting.” It’s what makes us funny, endearing and human.

“That’s how the Snickers controversy happened. I saw it, I thought it was funny in a very stupid kind of way.”

What way? Was it hilarious; corny; childish? What way was it funny, Robbie. I’m interested in your thoughts on this before I continue with it.

“I also thought ‘Uh oh,’ because the eternally offended were no doubt on the case. They look for homophobia, for justifications of their worldview, for opportunities bring out their orientation for an airing.”

Robbie, those activists make a stink about things such as homophobia because they are fighting for those who for whatever reason, haven’t a voice to fight. Those same average gay Americans you mention not having federal rights, are the same average gay Americans who could very well not have a voice to challenge those who oppress them.

“It’s how they filter all things.”

It’s called survival. Do you doubt that those, “average gay Americans” you stereotype do not do the same?

“They never got over being gay.”

And homocons never got over being closeted.

“Most of us grow up, come out, integrate our orientation into our lives, and move on to an emotionally balanced and healthy state.”

Hardly. I have seen nothing but unhinged, unbalanced, rage directed at those who might dispel the myth that all gays are homogeneous. You’re fear is gay people might make the straight people you court think twice about you. Your the kind pf person who spends emotional energy worrying about what the neighbors will say, not realizing the neighbors might be many times worse than you, or us.

“The concentration on one’s sexuality, the obsession with it, the allowing it to overtake and control one’s entire life is the surest mark of a person who hasn’t integrated it, who hasn’t worked it out.”

The same can be said about a homocons love and clinging to political, or religious dogma.

“When you have a high emotional investment combined with a concrete determination to uncover all of life’s subtext as it relates to homosexuality, you’re not in a position to use a lot of logic, reason, and critical thinking.”

When you have a high emotional investment combined with a concrete determination to uncover all of life’s subtext as it relates to conservatism, you’re not in a position to use a lot of logic, reason, and critical thinking.

See, Robbie, exchange one word for another and you have either a theory on the existence of a group you oppose, or claptrap based on demogogary and intolerance of opposing ideas.

“What these people lack is judgement, because they haven’t the wisdom or the life experience to weigh the important from the unimportant.”

I think it’s safe to say that spending years fighting for the rights of people, interacting with hundreds of different ideas, personalities and thoughts gives gay activists more intelligence, life experience and knowledge that any homocon could muster on their best day. You spend an inordinate amount of time avoiding equality fights and choose rather, to fight with the community that has given you every right, privilege and opportunity to exist as yourself that you enjoy, that you can’t see past your own myopic world view, Robbie.

“Everything gay-related is Relevant for them.”

And the same may be said of homocons, since rather than participate in gay politics, you stand on the side lines and react to everything gays do and say. You8 create nothing, yet tear down everything gay activists fight for. It stems from the fact that homocons have done nothing to advance gay equality and your apathy enrages you. But rather than question yourself and other homocons you attack the very people who worked for your freedom.

“Their identities are hinged on all things homosexual in culture and society.”

As are yours, Robbie,. If it weren’t for gay activists, your blog would have no reason to exist, your politics wouldn’t matter to anyone, you’d have no one tor rage against and you’d be insignificant. Homosexuality has made you what you are, in more ways than one.

“They are easily wounded, easily outraged, and easily intolerant because they are constantly reacting to the world around them.”

Obviously you haven’t read you’re own blog, Robbie. You have no problem with soldiers being sent to Iraq, telling us they are adults, yet get your panties in a bunch when an anti-gay gay adult is outed.

“Principles are a luxury, and radical principles are the domain of the spoiled.”

Principles are a luxury??? Well, that explains a lot…

And as far as your mutual bitchfest over “gay activists” is concerned, I find it ironic that you snipe and denigrate those activists while enjoying the fruits (pun intended) of the benefits they’ve achieved

Ted – I don’t even particularly want the “fruits” of those activists. I’m against ENDA, remember? I just think it bizarre nearly the entire gay establishment is pursuing such an ideologically purist course when the actual community – the living, breathing people who don’t work for an activist organization – are very much disunited on what’s happening.

You don’t find that incredibly telling, that maybe the organizations are just a mite out of touch?

But, as usual, you side with the lefty radicals because you don’t really give a damn about gay people in Middle America either. You’ve got yours. Knock yourself out.

It’s not *any* criticism that I have a problem with. But when it’s *nothing but* criticism–yeah, I take issue with that.

To denigrate and dismiss as “opportunistic” and “emotionally unevolved” entire segments of people who try to make a positive difference for gay people everywhere is indeed “Throwing Out The Baby With The Bathwater.”

The belief that all activists are uninformed, insulated and self-interested liberals with too much time on their hands is just cynical and small-minded.

Well, let’s see. Are gay organizations potentially denying millions of gays of legal protection in order to maintain their own ideological purity and political coalition? Yes.

Do the heads of the major gay organizations often mix and match left-wing causes with their gay politics – even those utterly unrelated to the subject at hand? Like abortion, health care, and anti-war activism? Yes.

Do men like Matt Foreman run to the media and declare the gay community united while gays everywhere are busy vehemently disagreeing with each other over legislation? Yes.

Self-interested? Check.

Liberal left-wingers? Check.

Insulated and out of touch? Check.

Funny how that works out.

You have a lot of assertions. I have a lot of facts. Who to believe . . .

I also attributed a portion of one of Matt’s posts to you, Robbie. Considering I made three mistakes, to the massive number of inaccuracies and fallacies in your two posts, I only think it fair that you take up the points in my comment.

“Are gay organizations potentially denying millions of gays of legal protection in order to maintain their own ideological purity and political coalition? Yes.”

Wrong. politicians are denying millions of gays legal protection. A president is threatening to veto a bill granting those protections.

“Do the heads of the major gay organizations often mix and match left-wing causes with their gay politics – even those utterly unrelated to the subject at hand? Like abortion, health care, and anti-war activism? Yes.”

Does abortion affect LGBTQ’s? Yes. Does health care affect LGBTQ’s? Yes. Does war affect LGBTQ’s? Yes. Clearly gay activists are well within the breadth and scope of their mandate.

“Do men like Matt Foreman run to the media and declare the gay community united while gays everywhere are busy vehemently disagreeing with each other over legislation? Yes.”

Does Matt Foreman represent those people who are members of an organization he represents? Yes. Therefore does Matt Foreman represent a group of gays who are united over legislation? Yes.

“Self-interested? Check.”

Interested in community. Check.

“Liberal left-wingers? Check.”

Of course. Homocons have never added anything to the debate, nor have they helped to push forward equality. What a silly question.

“Insulated and out of touch? Check.”

Understands the issues and the necessity for action now since future action is uncertain? Check.

“You have a lot of assertions. I have a lot of facts. Who to believe . . .”

Replace facts with opinion and you’re onto something. But Homocons have never allowed facts to cloud their opinions.

And you seem to believe that championing equality is a sexuality based undertaking. I’m still waiting for you to answer this point, Robbie:

“I have to say, I don’t think very much about my homosexuality in day to day life. The activists do.”

So do black activists and Jewish activists and women activists and religious activists and political activists. Are we all bad for doing this, Robbie?

“You’re a lot more like a right-winger in that respect than you know.”

Unlike the rightwingers, we tolerate dissent and are willing to debate the issues. Unfortunately, much like the rightwingers, the people who bring up complaints, rarely stay around to debate the very complaints they’ve brought up.

The 300 organizations who represent United ENDA are not “a few prominent people.” It is THE gay political establishment. How did three hundred organizations unite on an issue that gay people are not united on? Why don’t you address that Ted? Why do you deny that, Ted? Why do you offer defense after defense whenever someone on the Left does the indefensible? Why not address the point instead of going on the offense against anything perceived conservative or right-leaning?

Even I’ve made posts when I thought GLAAD or another gay organization was doing the right thing on an issue. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. Not so with you. Don’t you bore yourself silly with all the partisan hackery?

*Paul engages in a lot of predictable apologetics*

I wouldn’t know where to begin. Gay organizations are opposing legal protections for gays and lesbians as we speak. You can’t dress that pig up. You can try as hard as you please, but the bottom line is that gay organizations are actively attempting to defeat a bill that would provide legal protections for millions of gays and lesbians in this country. That is concrete, reality-based fact.

You can attempt a bit of political speak to pass the blame, but at the end of the day, if ENDA goes down, the gay organizations and people like you will have directly made that happen. Keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to pull out your “traitors to the community” rhetoric.

If ENDA goes down, you won’t have any room to lecture anyone on who goes out of their way to hurt gays and lesbians for the sake of their politics.

This topic is like one of those college dorm room discussions. The people having it think it’s of the ultimate importance, but everyone else has no idea what the hell they are talking about and really couldn’t care less.

Robbie delights in breaking the fourth wall. It was done better in, “Alfie.”

“Gay organizations are opposing legal protections for gays and lesbians as we speak.”

They don’t oppose protections for gays and lesbians and bisexuals, Robbie. They oppose excluding trans people and gender identity. A person won’t be denied a job, or won’t get fired because they may, or may not be gay. They’ll be denied work, or fired because they are perceived as gay.

“You can’t dress that pig up.”

No we can’t. Discrimination, creating a protections hierarchy, lining up people based on which of their attributes will be more palatable to voters are all ugly things.

“You can try as hard as you please, but the bottom line is that gay organizations are actively attempting to defeat a bill that would provide legal protections for millions of gays and lesbians in this country.”

Wrong. politicians are denying millions of gays legal protection. A president is threatening to veto a bill granting those protections.

“You can attempt a bit of political speak to pass the blame, but at the end of the day, if ENDA goes down, the gay organizations and people like you will have directly made that happen.”

I, nor Matt Foreman, nor yourself have any control over the passing, or vetoing of ENDA, Robbie. If we had the amount of power you attribute to us, we would have gad this bill passed; and DADTDP and DOMA decimated years ago.

“Keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to pull out your “traitors to the community” rhetoric.”

Hmm…I was wondering when you would attribute statements to me that I never made.

“If ENDA goes down, you won’t have any room to lecture anyone on who goes out of their way to hurt gays and lesbians for the sake of their politics.”

People have been hurting LGBTQ’s because of their politics for decades, Robbie. We have always been and will always be a wedge issue, trotted out to ask for money to stop us/help us; defeat us/advance us; win an election/lose an election.

“You’ll have done quite enough on your own.”

And if ENDA passes, where will the howls of victories come from? the homocons? Doubtful. they’ll merely wait until the next political dog walks in and begin attacking a new.

That’s funny, because it looks like you started off as a question, then veered of into a character judgment and then just sorta…

“Many of your criticisms and responses are based on Matt’s writing and Matt’s life. I don’t live in D.C., I’m not white-collar, etc. etc. etc.”

Points I corrected in my responses. However, your bio on The Malcontent states:

“He is currently careering in the financial sector, advising clients…”

It’s the, “…etc. etc. etc.” I’m interested in. I took the time to dismantle your spurious arguments. I’d hope you wouldn’t be so intellectually lazy as to not respond to the many questions and arguments I made in my post.

“Your posts and personal ad hominems are aimed at someone who hasn’t even commented here.”

My comment was aimed at Robbie, a name I tipped several times in my post. Perhaps if you actually read the comment.

With or without transgenders, ENDA is a dead-end until at least 2009. The House will pass it by a small majority, but you still need 15 Republicans in the Senate to vote for cloture.

That’s not going to happen, folks. And even if – by some miracle – it does pass the Senate, you’ve got the Commander-in-Chimp with his veto pen in hand. Remember, this is the President who reportedly dislikes Mitt Romney because he’s too “pro-gay.” Yes, that Mitt Romney. The guy who spent the last three years of his term in Massachusetts fighting same-sex marriage with a 1913 law that was designed to stop out-of-state blacks and whites from coming to Boston to get married is too “pro-gay” for Bushie. ENDA is definitely DOA.

You have problems with a few prominent people and/or issues and use that to trash the motivations of everyone who gets involved in trying to make a difference in the lives of gay people everywhere.

That would be much more convincing, Ted, if you weren’t sitting there spinning why those prominent people are right.

For example, HRC and NGLTF, while whining about “marriage equality”, blew tens of millions of dollars on politicians who openly opposed it.

HRC and NGLTF leaders screamed bloody murder that any politician who supported the FMA was a homophobe and that any gay who supported them was a “Jewish Nazi” and “traitor”…..and then went out and did it themselves.

And you can’t even say that was wrong, can you, Ted?

Don’t bother opening your mouth unless you can say, “Yes, it was wrong; these people are self-loathing pigs and hypocrites, and as someone who has supported them and their organizations, I find their behavior utterly appalling.”

They never got over being gay. Ever. Most of us grow up, come out, integrate our orientation into our lives, and move on to an emotionally balanced and healthy state. The concentration on one’s sexuality, the obsession with it, the allowing it to overtake and control one’s entire life is the surest mark of a person who hasn’t integrated it, who hasn’t worked it out.

That’s really the crux of it, isn’t it? There’s a large atmosphere of “I’m so persecuted . . ” And anything that is potentially related is now a hot button issue for them to mindlessly press on with. Regardless of what the actual consequences may be.

And there is a reason they never got over being gay; it’s really the only thing that distinguishes them in the least as people.

I mean, if Paul Raposo and Ted didn’t have being gay as an excuse, how many people do you think would put up with behavior like they’ve exhibited here?

“Why do you offer defense after defense whenever someone on the Left does the indefensible?”

When have I done that?

“Why not address the point instead of going on the offense against anything perceived conservative or right-leaning?”

I thought I was addressing the point–isn’t this post titled “Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater?” Insulting and dismissing all gay activists and the results they’ve been able to achieve because you don’t like every issue they support sounds like the textbook example of that title.

And I don’t view trashing all activists who work to further gay causes as a particularly left or right issue. I just see it as cynical and ungrateful.

LOL….Ted, you are still under the delusion that Americans accept gays to the extent that they do because of hatemongering, anti-straight flaming queens who blame everything that goes wrong in their life on “anti-gay discrimination”.

I daresay it’s more because there are gays like myself, Robbie, and Jamie out there who daily demonstrate that there’s really nothing that unusual, limiting, or different about being gay in 95% of your daily life.

Granted, most “real gays” hate us, because our existence negates their victim game; we demonstrate rather convincingly that there’s nothing about homosexuality that requires you to be an abortion supporter, an antireligious bigot, prejudiced against straight people, screaming that every statement is “hate speech”, engaging in public and unsafe sex, using drugs, dressing up like women or like an explosion in a thrift shop and calling it “gender expression”, and whatnot.

In short, you and yours have created a worldview in which homosexuality is abnormality. And rather than accepting that the vast majority of us are not, you’ve set out to make us look like traitors because we don’t follow your dogmatic beliefs about how gays should think, act, look, and vote.

“LOL….Ted, you are still under the delusion that Americans accept gays to the extent that they do because of hatemongering, anti-straight flaming queens who blame everything that goes wrong in their life on ‘anti-gay discrimination’.”

I don’t see gay people pursuing legislation to ban straight marriages; I don’t see straight soldiers being kicked out of the military for being straight; I don’t see straight teachers losing their jobs because they have not had gender reassignment surgery; I don’t see gay people telling libraries to ban books which feature opposite sex parents.

Conversely, all the rights and privileges gay people have enjoyed over the years have been brought about by gay activists fighting for those rights and privileges.

“I daresay it’s more because there are gays like myself, Robbie, and Jamie out there who daily demonstrate that there’s really nothing that unusual, limiting, or different about being gay in 95% of your daily life.”

Jeff, contrary to your myopic world view, gay activists, liberal gays and apolitical gays live out lives as well. Many of us go to school, own businesses, participate in politics, raise kids and generally look and act like straight society. The fact that you and Robbie and Jaime are able to be out, in relationships and are gainfully employed in todays society is because of all the challenges previous gay activists took on and won.

If most gays hated you, no one would be talking to you, no one would be friends with you and no one would be screwing you, Jeff. Now again, who is it that wants to ban ssm; ban gay adoption; who passes legislation against your very right to exist? Quick guess: Not the gays.

“we demonstrate rather convincingly that there’s nothing about homosexuality that requires you to be an abortion supporter,”

And there is nothing about homosexuality that precludes one from entering the debate. Otherwise, you’d have no right to discuss, or rail against abortion.

“an antireligious bigot,”

Your religious mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, you are living proof that LGBTQ’s attend church and are religious. You are not special in that regard, Jeff. And guess what; many of those church going gays are liberals and activists.

“prejudiced against straight people,”

Not all straight people, just the anti-gay ones. Homocons on the other hand seem to embrace anti-gay straights, while railing against those who actually support us.

“screaming that every statement is ‘hate speech’,”

Again, just the speech that is hateful. Clearly you have been given a pass on the nauseating things you’ve written over the years, so clearly we are able to differentiate between homocons and Fred Phelps.

“engaging in public and unsafe sex,”

Like Bob Allen, Larry Craig and Andrew Sullivan?

“using drugs,”

Because only gay people use drugs right? I mean, it’s not like a president of the US ever used cocaine, right?

“dressing up like women or like an explosion in a thrift shop and calling it “gender expression”, and whatnot.”

I see London, I see Peoria, I see Jeff’s ugly phobia! I’ll give you a pass on the ridiculous bit of femme-phobia simply because I understand that drag queens and femme boys simply remind you of the fact that you like to suck cock and that makes you uncomfortable.

“In short, you and yours have created a worldview in which homosexuality is abnormality.”

We have created a world where all gays are able to live free. If you can’t appreciate that, then fine, but don’t work against us while we try to move your equality even further ahead.

“And rather than accepting that the vast majority of us are not, you’ve set out to make us look like traitors because we don’t follow your dogmatic beliefs about how gays should think, act, look, and vote.”

You are traitors if you actively work against equality, while partaking of the very freedoms fought for by those you repudiate.

You give tens of millions of dollars to political candidates and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when they brag about having the “same position” as Republicans you claim are homophobic and endorse state constitutional amendments.

Bluntly put, not only are you “gay activists” supporting and endorsing of the very things you whine about being “antigay”, but you’re using your homosexuality as some sort of excuse for blatantly-abnormal and even criminal behavior. Bonnie Bleskachek is protected from being fired by Minnesota’s ENDA, despite what she did. That’s the best argument yet I’ve seen for telling ENDA to take a long walk off a short pier.

And it bugs the hell out of you that we won’t play along, because it negates your argument that being gay requires you to have public sex, sexually proposition and harass your coworkers, and dress up children and take them to sex fairs. That’s why you namecall us as being “femme-phobic”, “open closet”, “homocon”, and whatnot; you think by insulting us, you can control our behavior, because if another gay person called you that, you’d just melt.

Wow. I go away for the weekend and get a bunch of comments longer than the post. But I’m only going to respond to Pauls’ comment that directly ties to the post (because I just read everything else and I have a life other than this blog, people!):

Paul said: “No one is saying ‘don’t keep fighting for Trans rights’”

Those who oppose an inclusive ENDA are doing just that–saying nothing. I see a lot of let’s wait and see and very little along the lines of a plan to include Trans people at a alter time.

“We can take one step forward and be ready to fight our way up the stairs with some momentum–but no. We are told we must have all or nothing.”

Fifteen years after DADTDP what have you got? After DOMA what have you got? If it’s not fought for now, complacent gays will never fight for it.

“And guess what we’re going to get.”

Exactly what you want, your own rights and an ignorance of the rights of trans people.

First off, Paul, nowhere did I say I opposed a trans-inclusive ENDA. What I said was that since a trans-inclusive ENDA didn’t have the votes to pass but a non-trans-inclusive ENDA DID have the votes, then pass the one we have the votes for and keep fighting for trans-rights.

ALL gay rights so far have been won in small increments. I’m merely acknowleging the opportunity to gain one more step. Your statement that I’m “ignorant of the rights of trans people” is presumptuous and ignorant in itself, and completely unmerited and untrue. You assume wayyyyy too much about who I know and have for friends in real life.

And to answer your other questions: Fifteen years after DADT we have a prevailing atmosphere that it should be done away with completely, a belief shared by a plurality of the general population. After DOMA we have gay marriage in Massachusetts and more states to come (including my own Vermont, very soon.) We have a populace in the US that is growning more comfortable with individual homosexuals in everyday life than ever before.

And I have a very deeply seated notion that while some of this progress is due to advocacy groups, the greater growth of public acceptance today comes from individuals living our lives openly and honestly. Something which you yourself seem to take for granted.

Please state where in this post I endorsed Hilary Rosen, or Harold Ford. Please show me where I supported Inez Tenenbaum.

“You give tens of millions of dollars to political candidates and call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when they brag about having the “same position” as Republicans you claim are homophobic and endorse state constitutional amendments.”

Please show me where, or how, I was able to give millions to any organization, less a US based political organization. You know I’m Canadian, Jeff, so why are you playing stupid here?

Now, Jeff, why don’t you explain why you support the party who began the pursuit of a Constitutional Amendment banning equal marriage and continue to support that party’s candidates, even though all their presidential hopefuls support banning on the federal lever, all protections for equal marriage?

Why don’t you explain why you support the constitutional amendments of eleven states banning equal marriage, domestic partnerships, or any kind of legal protections of ss relationships; and why you support the religious right’s fight against something they say they care about–adults pursuing of monogamous marriage?

“And now, as I cited above, you are actively praising legislators who vote AGAINST employment protections.”

Please show me where I have shown support for any candidate, Jeff and please explain why you support a MINORITY of Republicans who support ENDA, while chastising a MAJORITY of Democrats who support ENDA. Why do you support Bush’s punitive threat of a veto of ENDA?

“And as far as your daily behavior goes, you and your fellow gay activists are the ones dressing up your two-year-olds in fetish wear and taking them to a sex fair.”

Since we know that 30% of LGBTQ’s identify as conservative, it’s safe to say that 30% of those people at the FSF are homocons. Please explain why you’re people engage in outrageous activity in public.

“You are the ones demanding sex from your subordinates, retaliating against people who refuse you, and openly discriminating against people who aren’t of your gender and sexual orientation — and then calling it ‘a whole lot of homophobia and sexism’ when you are caught.”

Please explain why the Mark Foley’s, Bob Allen’s, Larry Craig’s and Donald Fleischman’s of the Republican party won’t stop molesting children, sexually harassing straight people and soliciting sex in public toilets. Why are homocons such perverts?

“Bluntly put, not only are you “gay activists” supporting and endorsing of the very things you whine about being “antigay”, but you’re using your homosexuality as some sort of excuse for blatantly-abnormal and even criminal behavior.”

Please explain why Larry Craig refuses to step down as senator and is refusing to admit his guilt in trolling for sex in a public toilet. Please explain why Bob Allen offered a police officer $20 and oral sex, then used racism as a justification for doing so. Please explain why Mark Foley sent sexually harassing text messages to teenage boys and why Hasterd and the RNC covered up his pedophilia. Why is the Republican part harboring their child molesters, Jeff? Why are you a member of the Grand Old Perverts?

“And it bugs the hell out of you that we won’t play along,”

It bugs the hell out of me that homocons add nothing to the LGBTQ community, but take whatever they can, without thanking those who gave their time and lives to make your life better, Jeff. If it weren’t for the militant queers at Stonewall, you’d be a toilet troll just like Larry Craig.

“because it negates your argument that being gay requires you to have public sex, sexually proposition and harass your coworkers, and dress up children and take them to sex fairs.”

I’ve seen more evidence of perverse conservatives–just some of which I have provided here–than against any actions taken by liberal gays, Jeff.

“That’s why you namecall us as being “femme-phobic”, “open closet”, “homocon”, and whatnot;”

Because it’s true. Homocons are all lily white cowards, who snipe from the sidelines, while enjoying the freedoms fought for by others. Your hatred of drag queens and transvestites; your refuse to give equal rights to transgendered people and your belief that only “butch” straight acting gay men are better proves that you–YOU, Jeff– are femme-phobic, living in an open closet and that you are a homosexual conservative–a homocon.

“you think by insulting us, you can control our behavior, because if another gay person called you that, you’d just melt.”

We insult you to get you motivated to do something beside bitch and moan. Maybe that’s the problem, we care too much about you and your wellbeing. Maybe if we treated you like second class citizens, you’d finally act like better human beings and actually try to make your country a better place, instead of wallowing in the status quo.

As far as melting, I haven’t backed off from any of your replies, Jeff. But I do hear a lot of whining from you.

And that’s what this is really about; you accuse and condemn “homocons” for allegedly doing all these things, but you never once accuse or condemn liberals and Democrats for doing them, even when presented with clear evidence of them doing it.

And furthermore, Paul, the fact that you hate and are afraid of masculine men is why you and your fellow “transgenders” are trying to make it a requirement that all gay men be “femmes”, as if sexual orientation automatically turned you into a woman. Don’t project onto us your own inadequacies about your own masculinity; the rest of us are doing just fine. It’s just you who seems to have the need to turn yourself into a woman to be “accepted”.

Meanwhile, Beyondmarriage.org makes it clear that you don’t want monogamous marriage; it explicitly endorses polygamy, as do the gay-pushed studies in Canada trying to argue that gay marriage means that polygamy should be legalized.

For a group of people who bellyache when your side’s hypocrisy is pointed out, (like a senator claiming he is protecting the sanctity of marriage, while toilet trolling, ) you sure like to point the finger at others, Jeff.

“If you so oppose state constitutional amendments, why did you and your fellow “gay activists” support them when Dems pushed them?”

Why do you support the Republican party and it’s members and voters who enacted those amendments?

“If you so oppose the FMA, why did you and your fellow gay activists support it when Dems pushed it?”

Why do you support a party who feels that DOMA and FMA aren’t enough and only a constitutional amendment on the federal level is necessary?

“If you support ENDA, why did you and your fellow gay activists support legislators who voted against it when they were Dems?”

Why do you support the majority of Republicans who refuse to help pass an trans non-inclusive ENDA and a president who has stated he will veto it, before he has even seen the bill?

“If you’re against dressing up two-year-olds in fetish wear and taking them to sex fairs, why are you supporting gays who do it?”

Why are you supporting conservatives who attended the FSF and engaged in unsafe behavior?

“If you’re against sexual harassment of coworkers, why do you support gays and lesbians who do it?”

Why do you support senator’s who send sexual harassing test massages to teenage co-workers and underlings?

“You say soliciting and having public sex is a crime? Demonstrate that you believe it.”

I have, by denouncing Bob Allen and Larry Craig. The Republican party and it’s members however support them.

“And that’s what this is really about; you accuse and condemn “homocons” for allegedly doing all these things, but you never once accuse or condemn liberals and Democrats for doing them, even when presented with clear evidence of them doing it.”

And I have presented many cases of conservative bigotry and intolerance and you have steadfastly refused to denounce their actions.

“And furthermore, Paul, the fact that you hate and are afraid of masculine men is why you and your fellow “transgenders” are trying to make it a requirement that all gay men be “femmes”,”

Hate masculine men? How could I hate any man who primps and preens and tells everyone how butch they are–like Matt Sanchez–but is the biggest nelly queen this side of La Cage au Folles? You homocons are adorable!

We support all types and possibly, all stereotypes, because we are inclusive. Homocons on the other hand, will not tolerate any man who doesn’t act butch and any woman who isn’t a lipstick lesbian.

“as if sexual orientation automatically turned you into a woman.”

And being a conservative doesn’t automatically turn you into a man, Jeff. If you have to tell people you’re a man, you aren’t really. You don’t tell people you’re a man , you show them you are through your actions.

Bruce Carrol tries to convince his readers that he is a patriot and a man, yet people like Sgt. Alva and JK Knight are never given their proper respect for being patriots and men, in every sense of the word. All you homocon arm chair generals are pathetic.

“Don’t project onto us your own inadequacies about your own masculinity;”

This coming from a man who disparages drag queens, trans people and any other LGBTQ who does not conform to his rules. As I’ve stated before, men like you and Robbie hate gays who aren’t “straight acting” because they remind you of the fact that you like to suck cock and no party affiliation will ever remove that fact. Deal with your own internalized homophobia and stop picking on the femmes, butches and trans, Jeff.

“the rest of us are doing just fine. It’s just you who seems to have the need to turn yourself into a woman to be “accepted”.”

And again a man proves he is by his actions, not his words, or party affiliation, Jeff. We are secure enough in our sexuality and masculinity to be able to accept trans people. Homocons on the other hand are terrified that the curtain will be pulled back on your little charade and you’re rightwing friends will see that you belong to a community that supports trans people.

Me personally? Or, are you merely generalizing and making broad sweeping statements about people again? Frankly, of all the couples i know who have been married, only one couple are conservatives, the rest are liberals, independents, or apolitical. Clearly the people afraid of commitment are the homocons.

“it explicitly endorses polygamy, as do the gay-pushed studies in Canada trying to argue that gay marriage means that polygamy should be legalized.”

Considering that the only people who believe that equal marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy are anti-gay marriage conservatives, I find your assertion laughable.

And I have presented many cases of conservative bigotry and intolerance and you have steadfastly refused to denounce their actions.

Actually, Paul, what you’ve presented is example after example of the fact that whether or not you consider something to be “bigotry and intolerance” depends entirely on the political affiliation of who’s doing it.

Take for example Hilary Rosen and the numerous gay activists like yourself who gave tens of millions of dollars to state constitutional amendment supporters and FMA supporters, and who are now praising people who voted against ENDA.

You claim any gay person who would do so is a hypocrite, is self-loathing, is open-closeted, is anti-transgender, etc.

Except when it comes to you and your fellow liberals doing it, which you claim is “fighting for freedoms”.

And again, you spin away. I gave you clear, referenced examples of gays dressing up their children in fetish gear and taking them to sex fairs to show off and clear examples of gays having and soliciting public sex and you would not condemn those gays — only Republicans who you alleged were doing the same thing.

And finally, you’ve worked yourself into a frenzy over Mark Foley for sending text messages — but you staunchly refuse to condemn the behavior of gay liberal and Democrat Gerry Studds for not only sending messages to, but actually having sex with a minor-age coworker.

Deal with your own internalized homophobia and stop picking on the femmes, butches and trans, Jeff.

Well, Bonnie Bleskachek and the gay activists who support her say that it’s “homophobia and sexism” to hold her responsible for sexually harassing her coworkers, demanding sex from them, and retaliating against those who provide it, Paul — and you agree.

So that’s the way I interpret your calling me “homophobic” — that’s what you call anyone who doesn’t believe that gays have the right to sexually harass and demand sex of their coworkers, to demand and have public sex, and whatnot.

And finally, as to Canada, accept what you and your fellow gay activists believe, please, as outlined there and in the “Beyond Conjugality” report, which specifically outlines same-sex marriage as an argument for decriminalizing and allowing polygamy.

Furthermore, you should read the list of people who support it at BeyondMarriage.org. As these gay activists make clear, if you oppose their belief that polygamy is right, you are homophobic, sexist, misogynist, and anti-trans.

“As I’ve stated before, men like you and Robbie hate gays who aren’t “straight acting” because they remind you of the fact that you like to suck cock and no party affiliation will ever remove that fact.”

And this, of course, rests at the heart of Paul’s issues.

The fact of the matter is, I like plenty of gays who aren’t straight-acting. Even dated a few. My issues are always primarily with gay culture, what it perpetuates, what it approves of, what it promotes. Mannerisms and behavior are two different things. Mannerisms have never bothered me. Behavior that accompanies the “bitchy queen” steretype often does. I don’t think cruelty is funny. The bitchy queen stereotype celebrates cruelty as the height of wit.

And here, Paul, is where your insecurities are laid bare. You have to think I hate effeminate men, because then you don’t have to actually examine the culture. As long as you can dismiss me as self-loathing, you don’t have to think very much on any of the points I’m making.

I’m not self-loathing. I really like being gay. Men are great. And my pathetically butch self spent yesterday evening watching Rent and going through eight boxes of kleenex during the Angel death scenes. Yep, I sure do hate gay people and images that remind me of my gayness.

The problem is, Paul, that people like you feel inadequate when it comes to your masculinity. That’s why you project these attitudes onto people like me. I don’t think everyone should be butch, because not everyone is butch. Hell, I would never describe myself as butch. I’m very middling, average, unremarkable. I’ve always said people should be exactly who they are. They shouldn’t conform to heterosexual stereotypes just to fit in – but nor should gay people conform to gay stereotypes just to fit in with the community.

And that last bit really pisses people like you off for some reason. Because you can’t stand the idea that maybe you’re different and get shit for it, but gays who aren’t very gay-acting are “privileged” or get some kind of free ride. So you have to attack and fortify your own behaviors as a bulwark against a bunch of self-esteem motivated nonsense.

I think my take on life “Be who you are,” is a lot better than yours, “Be how we say gay people are, and if you’re not, we’re going to tell everyone how much you hate yourself.”

You’re just an ass, Paul. An authoritarian ass who thinks all gay people must behave and think alike, and you will attack them any way you know how to ensure it.

I’m for gay freedom. You’re for gay ideological slavery. No thanks.

And for the record, you have no idea what people do or do not do for other gay people. Have you examined my tax returns, made an accounting of what I do with my time, peered over my shoulder while I’m in the voting booth? No, you have not. You know nothing at all about me, and your repeated assumptions about “homocons” have yet to apply to me a single time.

Maybe if any of your remarks veered within a hemisphere of reality, I’d take you more seriously. As it is, I’ve argued with dozens of your clones in the past who held the same arguments, the same wrong assumptions, and lobbed the same attacks. The same old shit, basically. Does the gay left give out some kind of manual? Sometimes I think an original thought would give certain people an aneurysm. Maybe that’s why they avoid them.

“Actually, Paul, what you’ve presented is example after example of the fact that whether or not you consider something to be “bigotry and intolerance” depends entirely on the political affiliation of who’s doing it.”

Nope. What I presented are several examples of conservatives who hold anti-gay prejudices, yet engage in unsafe and risky behavior, which anti-gay people claim are the sole domain of gay men. And further, I pointed out that the Republican party claims it wants to protect it’s citizens from gay marriage, while their politicians trash their own marriages; want to protect children, while their politicians assualt children; and want to stop lewdness, while they cover up the lewd actions of their own. Clearly, you feel it’s better to say, “Well, the Dems do it too,” than actually acknowledge your own parties nauseating activities.

“Take for example Hilary Rosen and the numerous gay activists like yourself who gave tens of millions of dollars to state constitutional amendment supporters and FMA supporters, and who are now praising people who voted against ENDA.”

Take for example the Log Cabin Republicans who rather than accept anti-gay legislation and prejudice, try to change anti-gay attitudes and work to bring in gay friendly politicians, yet are turned on by homocons who prefer war to equal marriage.

“You claim any gay person who would do so is a hypocrite, is self-loathing, is open-closeted, is anti-transgender, etc.”

Yes I did. I’m waiting for you to denounce your own party for initiating state wide bans on equal marriage. You have yet to do so, Jeff.

“Except when it comes to you and your fellow liberals doing it, which you claim is “fighting for freedoms”.”

Where did I state this?

“And again, you spin away. I gave you clear, referenced examples of gays dressing up their children in fetish gear and taking them to sex fairs to show off and clear examples of gays having and soliciting public sex and you would not condemn those gays — only Republicans who you alleged were doing the same thing.”

You presented those examples to avoid answering the questions I leveled at you, Jeff. Rather than answer my questions, you fell back on the old chestnut of, “Well, liberals do this,” rather than denounce the grotesque actions of your own party members.

Shouldn’t I? Shouldn’t you? The cons circled the wagons and blamed the “liberal media”, the Dems, the teenagers. Blamed everyone except Foley and the party that enabled him.

“but you staunchly refuse to condemn the behavior of gay liberal and Democrat Gerry Studds for not only sending messages to, but actually having sex with a minor-age coworker.”

This is the first time you’ve mentioned Studds.

According to what I’ve read on the web, the page in question was gay, stated the relationship was consensual and apparently, initiated the sexual relationship. If they believed that was a good arrangement for them both to be in, that is their prerogative.

“Well, Bonnie Bleskachek and the gay activists who support her say that it’s “homophobia and sexism” to hold her responsible for sexually harassing her coworkers, demanding sex from them, and retaliating against those who provide it, Paul — and you agree.”

Where did I agree with that, Jeff? And where have you denounced Republican party faithful harassing co-workers?

“So that’s the way I interpret your calling me ‘homophobic’ — that’s what you call anyone who doesn’t believe that gays have the right to sexually harass and demand sex of their coworkers, to demand and have public sex, and whatnot.”

No. I call gays who–sexually harass and demand sex of their coworkers, demand and have public sex, and whatnot–Republicans.

“And finally, as to Canada, accept what you and your fellow gay activists believe, please, as outlined there and in the “Beyond Conjugality” report, which specifically outlines same-sex marriage as an argument for decriminalizing and allowing polygamy.”

Uh…Jeff, Martha Bailey is a homophobe who opposes equal marriage for LGBTQ’s. That “paper” is a diatribe against ssm, not a support of ssm. It uses polygamy as a scare tactic against equal marriage. If you can’t tell that, why am I debating you?

“Furthermore, you should read the list of people who support it at BeyondMarriage.org. As these gay activists make clear, if you oppose their belief that polygamy is right, you are homophobic, sexist, misogynist, and anti-trans.”

The website doesn’t come up, Jeff. I let it pass the first time because I didn’t want to be one of “those” posters who heckles a person. However, since you brought up that site twice, I feel it necessary to point out that it’s a dead link.

“The fact of the matter is, I like plenty of gays who aren’t straight-acting. Even dated a few.”

You also claim to like transgendered people, yet are willing to ignore their need for federal protections.

“My issues are always primarily with gay culture, what it perpetuates, what it approves of, what it promotes.”

Gay culture is our history. People like you always zero in on the sexual aspect of our history for what ever reason. I think that says more about you, than it does about the rest of us.

What gay culture perpetuates, is the need to be out and open; to fight for equality. What it approves of is a person’s right to love whom they choose, live as they choose and identify as they choose. What it promotes is community.

Simply because you have chosen to view the LGBTQ community as just sex, you have given yourself permission to dismiss, disrespect and fight against LGBTQ equality. It’s the only way you can stand to look at yourself in the mirror each morning–“gays are degenerates, I am not, therefore I will not participate.”

By not participating, you are removing a voice from the community. What’s sad is voices are usually silent because they are closeted. Your’s is silent because of your own internalized homophobia.

“Mannerisms and behavior are two different things. Mannerisms have never bothered me. Behavior that accompanies the “bitchy queen” steretype often does.”

Why? You are exceptionally bitchy and queenie. You remind me of the guy who lambastes femme gays, while holding his cigarette like Betty Davis in, “All About Eve” and trashing every person who comes near them. The problem is, you don’t see your bitchiness and honestly believe you ain’t so.

Agreed. And unfortunately, there are many who cannot handle hecklers and sadly, withdraw from the community. Fortunately, for every one bitchy queen, there are many more tolerant people there for support. Much like homocons, the bitchy queen is a vocal minority who gets more press than they deserve.

“And here, Paul, is where your insecurities are laid bare. You have to think I hate effeminate men, because then you don’t have to actually examine the culture.”

I’m using you words and stereotypes to make a point Robbie. If you don’t like the fact that I’m pointing out your internalized homophobia, then lose it.

“As long as you can dismiss me as self-loathing, you don’t have to think very much on any of the points I’m making.”

The points you are making have been made many times by people much smarter than you. This debate has been going on since the Mattachine Society days; Stonewall; ActUp and will go on long after we’re both dead.

The thing is, you can very well participate in the debate, but you choose to withdraw based on your own prejudices of the LGBTQ community.

“I’m not self-loathing.”

I’m sorry. You just loathe other gays. My mistake.

“I really like being gay. Men are great. And my pathetically butch self spent yesterday evening watching Rent and going through eight boxes of kleenex during the Angel death scenes. Yep, I sure do hate gay people and images that remind me of my gayness.”

Funny then that you would belittle Pride parades; want to exclude trans people from federal protection; believe that ENDA should not be passed; don’t support hate crime legislation; and ridicule gay men who don’t follow lock step your stereotypes of what gay men should act like.

You appear to have a soul when dealing with fictional characters in films, yet seem to have difficulty in having compassion for real life LGBTQ’s.

“The problem is, Paul, that people like you feel inadequate when it comes to your masculinity.”

Nope. People like me are confident in our masculinity, that is why we support a trans inclusive ENDA, why we support Pride parades, why we tolerate drag queens and bitchy queens and queens in general.

The argument you and Jeff have tried to use is the same argument conservatives use against straight people who support gay rights–if you support them you must be one of them. It won’t fly with me, Robbie.

“That’s why you project these attitudes onto people like me.”

Just basing my perceptions on your words, Robbie.

“I don’t think everyone should be butch, because not everyone is butch. Hell, I would never describe myself as butch. I’m very middling, average, unremarkable.”

Good. That almost makes you come off as human, Robbie. I think we might be making progress.

“I’ve always said people should be exactly who they are. They shouldn’t conform to heterosexual stereotypes just to fit in – but nor should gay people conform to gay stereotypes just to fit in with the community.”

The difference is, the first can cause pain for many and the second can be fun. There is a difference between bitchy and camp. Unfortunately too many can’t–or won’t–tell the difference.

“And that last bit really pisses people like you off for some reason.”

Only if the assertion means that the person rejecting gay stereotypes goes so far beyond the pale, as to become anti-gay. A Tyler Whitney, Ken Melman, Andrew Sullivan, Jason Rauch, etc, are so proud of their dismissal of the LGBTQ community, that they come off as staunchly anti-gay as any Pat Robertson.

“Because you can’t stand the idea that maybe you’re different and get shit for it, but gays who aren’t very gay-acting are “privileged” or get some kind of free ride.”

See, now who interprets “gay acting” and just plain effeminate? There is a difference between flamboyance and being a femme gay, or a butch lesbian. Unfortunately, too many equate the two as interchangeable and sadly, many of the people who do so are homocons.

Now, are they getting a free ride for being themselves, or for parroting the anti-gay line? That is something homocons are loathe to examine. Are homocons popular with the right because they are cons, or trash talk gays worse than any con ever could–or would?

“So you have to attack and fortify your own behaviors as a bulwark against a bunch of self-esteem motivated nonsense.”

Aren’t you, Matt, Jeff and Bruce all doing the same? You’re all playing a game of, “We’re not like THOSE gays!” in an effort to differentiate yourselves from not only other gays, but from other cons.

“I think my take on life ‘Be who you are,’ is a lot better than yours, ‘Be how we say gay people are, and if you’re not, we’re going to tell everyone how much you hate yourself.'”

No. Your beliefs are more like, “Be different from us and we will deny your existence, your equality and fight for the status quo.” Your warm platitudes about being oneself would resonate more, if you didn’t defend the indefensible, Robbie.

“You’re just an ass, Paul.”

Better to be an ass, than the hole, Robbie.

“An authoritarian ass who thinks all gay people must behave and think alike, and you will attack them any way you know how to ensure it.”

This coming from the man who tells us he has many trans friends, but believes they shouldn’t have equal rights. Your entire argument about GENDA has been since trans people don’t act like gay people, then they shouldn’t get the equality that gay people re looking for.

Every person can be any way they choose. But when that person chooses a religion, political position, or ideology that looks to stamp out equality for LGBTQ’s, then they need to be called out for it.

“I’m for gay freedom.”

As you see it and for whom you believe should have it.

“You’re for gay ideological slavery. No thanks.’

You’re for political demogogary.

“And for the record, you have no idea what people do or do not do for other gay people. Have you examined my tax returns, made an accounting of what I do with my time, peered over my shoulder while I’m in the voting booth? No, you have not. You know nothing at all about me, and your repeated assumptions about “homocons” have yet to apply to me a single time.”

Everything I have stated here is based on your writings, Robbie.

“Maybe if any of your remarks veered within a hemisphere of reality, I’d take you more seriously. As it is, I’ve argued with dozens of your clones in the past who held the same arguments, the same wrong assumptions, and lobbed the same attacks. The same old shit, basically. Does the gay left give out some kind of manual? Sometimes I think an original thought would give certain people an aneurysm. Maybe that’s why they avoid them.”

And nothing you have written here is any different from the usual claptrap you post on your blog, Robbie, or differentiates you from the others, with your homocon lamentations. You parrot the party line, you repeat the same stereotypes, you bitch and moan about being a victim, all the while victimizing those who refuse to accept your pursuit of the status quo.

Let’s face facts, if this were WWII Berlin and the SS were handing out pink triangles, homocons would be ordering lampshades.

The website doesn’t come up, Jeff. I let it pass the first time because I didn’t want to be one of “those” posters who heckles a person. However, since you brought up that site twice, I feel it necessary to point out that it’s a dead link.

In fact, simply typing BeyondMarriage.org into a web browser address bar will bring up the page in question.

Next:

Uh…Jeff, Martha Bailey is a homophobe who opposes equal marriage for LGBTQ’s. That “paper” is a diatribe against ssm, not a support of ssm. It uses polygamy as a scare tactic against equal marriage. If you can’t tell that, why am I debating you?

Silly Paul.

Had you actually read BeyondMarriage.org, instead of denying and pretending the address didn’t work, you might have noticed something in the full statement:

In 2001, in consideration of its mandate to “consider measures that will make the legal system more efficient, economical, accessible, and just,” the Law Commission of Canada released a report, Beyond Conjugality, calling for fundamental revisions in the law to honor and support all caring and interdependent personal adult relationships, regardless of whether or not the relationships are conjugal in nature.

In other words, you and your fellow gay activists cited that very report as “proof” of why you should support same-sex, polygamy, and non-monogamous relationships and how tolerant and supportive the Canadian government was — a report which you are now claiming is homophobic and antigay.

It becomes understandable why your homosexuality prevents you from getting a job when it becomes more and more obvious how much it affects your ability to comprehend reality — and your willingness to make up excuses, expecting people to believe you because you’re gay.

Others of us are not nearly afflicted.

Clearly, you feel it’s better to say, “Well, the Dems do it too,” than actually acknowledge your own parties nauseating activities.

Ah, but you see, Paul, you only consider them “nauseating” when it’s Republicans.

When it’s Democrat politicians having sex with teenagers who are their subordinates, you make up excuses about how it’s “consensual”.

When it’s Democrats supporting the FMA and state constitutional amendments, as well as liberal gays like yourself supporting them and giving them money, you call it “fighting for your freedoms”.

When it’s Democrats having public sex and leaving c*m all over public restrooms for people to step or sit in, or dressing up their two-year-olds in fetish gear and taking them to sex fairs, or sexually harassing their coworkers and demanding sex from them, you claim that’s just expressing “the right to love whom they choose, live as they choose and identify as they choose”.

In short, since you don’t see anything “nauseating” about those behaviors when Democrats do them, I have very little reason to believe that you actually consider them to be nauseating — and much more to believe that you’re just indulging in hypocritical behavior to reinforce your beliefs.

Paul said: According to what I’ve read on the web, the page in question was gay, stated the relationship was consensual and apparently, initiated the sexual relationship. If they believed that was a good arrangement for them both to be in, that is their prerogative.

I’m not one to defend the Republican Party, ever, Paul, and that is plainly evident in the litany of postings on this very blog. So that’s definitely not what I’m doing when I say that I cannot let that particular statement stand. The page was underage and Studds in a position of power over him. Because of those very facts it was inappropriate at least, not to mention statutorily illegal. Which is less than we should accept from our congresspersons.

And you still’ve not responded to my own refutations of your accusations towards me, in my prior comment.

“So that’s definitely not what I’m doing when I say that I cannot let that particular statement stand.”

I based my statement on what I read online. It’s an old case and the majority of the sites i found discussing the situation were anti-gay/anti-Dem websites. I only found a few impartial sites that discussed the facts of the case and there were rather thin.

“The page was underage and Studds in a position of power over him. Because of those very facts it was inappropriate at least, not to mention statutorily illegal. Which is less than we should accept from our congresspersons.”

Agreed. But if the page in question felt it was appropriate and Studds was too stupid to realize it was wrong and it happened decades ago, what can I do about it?

Cons love to bring up old situations: Studds, Barney Frank’s bf, etc., every time a current Republican dips their wick where they shouldn’t. Those are the people who refer to Frank as a pedo, so how impartial can they, or their assessments be?

“And you still’ve not responded to my own refutations of your accusations towards me, in my prior comment.”

“Fifteen years after DADT we have a prevailing atmosphere that it should be done away with completely, a belief shared by a plurality of the general population.”

Yet nothing is being done to remove the law and soldiers are still being discharged. Wanting it done and getting it are two different things.

“After DOMA we have gay marriage in Massachusetts and more states to come (including my own Vermont, very soon.)”

And 11 states with constitutional amendments banning equal marriage and presidential hopefuls on both sides advocating the status quo and in some cases, even harsher laws banning all recognition of gay relationships.

“We have a populace in the US that is growning more comfortable with individual homosexuals in everyday life than ever before.”

But many of whom will not give us the equality we seek. it’s one thing to like a gay person, it’s another to be happy about the idea of one of us marrying their child.

“And I have a very deeply seated notion that while some of this progress is due to advocacy groups, the greater growth of public acceptance today comes from individuals living our lives openly and honestly.”

Homosexuals were doing so for decades, not as open as we are use to today, but men like Harry Hay and Harvey Milk led the way. However, if it weren’t for Stonewall, the the pride parades of the seventies and the actions of ACT-UP we would not have the advocacy groups and the advancements we have seen over the decades.

“Something which you yourself seem to take for granted.”

No one will hand us our equality. it’s one thing to be nice to your neighbours, it’s another to hope they will not vote to ban your relationship.

Those are the people who refer to Frank as a pedo, so how impartial can they, or their assessments be?

This is a good example of my main problem with most of the arguments presented by both you and NDT: you both keep reverting to generalizations and labels. That is seldom productive or conducive to a truly informative and developed discussion. Is this indicative of the overall climate of the blogoshpere? I think so. But I’d like to see more discussions that avoid such tactics and encourage collaboration, or at least a more civil disagreement.

I don’ t know the specifics of Barney Frank’s alleged situation so I won’t speak to them. But my point, really, is that you and NDT can cite examples of how fucked up people have been until you’re both blue in the face–there are plenty to cite on either side–but that’s not helping make positive change for the future one bit. And frankly it gets a bit tedious.

Yes, Stonewall and the like, as I alluded to before, have definitely been stepping stones for the gay rights movement. I’m not denying that. But the degree of openness we are able to live in today is a completely different world than back then, and our strategies should not be the same as they were back then, either.

I’m more than “nice to my neighbors.” I’m involved in activities withing my community–with my husband. When people find out we’ve been together for 14years they almost invariably say, “wow.” As if that is somehow an unheard of thought that a gay couple could be together for that long. Because that face is seldom presented to the public by a media who finds us too tame to be “newsworthy.” We don’t just “hope they will not vote to ban” our relationship–we live our lives intertwined with theirs in such a way that they can see that we’re essentially no different from them. We talk to them and answer questions–once they know us well enough to lose their embarassment and actually ASK us face-to face. People are amazed at how un-stereotypical a gay man, or couple, can be. And while public advocacy for gay rights should be encouraged, there is a very vocal minority of GLBT people who chastise those of us in committed relationships for being “straight-acting” or “trying to fit in.”

I was even called a “breeder” by one gay commenter here a few months ago.

The hostility is not on my part. Or Robbie’s, really. The demand that I see comes from those gay people who insist that I’m not gay enough because I don’t approach life in the same way that they do. For a group that wants public tolerance so badly, we are, unfortunately, quite intolerant of differences amongst ourselves.

You said, “it’s one thing to like a gay person, it’s another to be happy about the idea of one of us marrying their child.”

In order for that to be a credible consideration for a parent, they would have to have a gay child in the first place. And if they feel a modicum of discomfort in thinking that their child might be gay, or could be, in the future when they grow older, then we aren’t going to change their minds by deliberately not “fitting in.” It’s one thing to be different because you are. It’s another entirely to be different just for the sake of being different, as if that’s a worthy cause in and of itself.

Lastly, (and I know I’m not necessarily taking these things in the order you delineated them) you must realize that there will always be those, at least in the foreseeable future, who will be against us no matter what. I, for one, don’t wish to waste my time trying to change the intractable who base their bigotry on religious viewpoints they established by picking and choosing what they wish from the Bible. Eventually they will have a gay relative, or their child will, and in a few generations they will be a very minimal group if we keep making progress at the current rate. 11 state constitutional amendments banning our marriage is abhorrent in the face of equality–but is that not still better than the status of federal law prior to Lawrence V Texas, when not just marriage, but physical intimate contact was punishable by jail time?

We serve ourselves and each other better by maintaining some perspective.

“In fact, simply typing BeyondMarriage.org into a web browser address bar will bring up the page in question.”

My mistake.

However, Jeff, your silly dramatics aside, what exactly is frightening about that website and it’s mission statement?

“Had you actually read BeyondMarriage.org, instead of denying and pretending the address didn’t work, you might have noticed something in the full statement:”

I did read it and I saw nothing frightening in that statement.

“In 2001, in consideration of its mandate to ‘consider measures that will make the legal system more efficient, economical, accessible, and just,’ the Law Commission of Canada released a report, Beyond Conjugality, calling for fundamental revisions in the law to honor and support all caring and interdependent personal adult relationships, regardless of whether or not the relationships are conjugal in nature.”

First off Jeff, The Law Commission of Canada is no more:

“The Law Commission of Canada was informed on the 25th of September, 2006, of the federal government’s decision to eliminate the Commission’s funding.”

Secondly, what The Law Commission of Canada wrote was–

“Creating a registration scheme that would permit all relationships, conjugal and other, to benefit from the characteristics of voluntariness, publicity, certainty and stability now afforded only to marriage could eliminate the need for marriage. It would not prevent people from marrying religiously or calling themselves “married” in addition to “registering” their unions. However, the religious marriage would not carry legal connotations nor would the public identification as “married” be of any legal consequence. In order to have legal consequences, people would have to register their relationship. Legal consequences would accompany only the additional and separate step of registering the relationship for civil purposes. The system of civil registration would be open to all, married couples and others, who want to obtain public recognition and support of their relationships while voluntarily subscribing to a range of legal rights and obligations.”

In other words, people who are dependent on each other would have, “…certainty and stability now afforded only to marriage could eliminate the need for marriage…”

Families could not put an elderly person into a home, if they have a permanent caregiver; relatives could become legal guardians of each other; adults could become legal guardians of other adults without the need for adoption, or marriage. It was the idea that non-conjugal adults could find the same protections for each other, that married people have.

“In other words, you and your fellow gay activists cited that very report as “proof” of why you should support same-sex, polygamy, and non-monogamous relationships and how tolerant and supportive the Canadian government was — a report which you are now claiming is homophobic and antigay.”

I made a mistake. I thought the author was one, Margaret Bailey. A vocal–at the time–anti equal marriage religionist.

However, what Ms. Bailey wrote was:

” In a decision that seemed to many a surprising reversal of this trend, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002 ruled that legislators could constitutionally exclude unmarried couples from family property laws. The effect of this decision has been to revive the legal significance of marriage.”

Now, Jeff, where exactly does Ms. Bailey support polygamy in that?

As to BeyondMarriage.org, I don’t see any gay activists supporting polygamy, Jeff. What I read was this:

“In 2001, in consideration of its mandate to ‘consider measures that will make the legal system more efficient, economical, accessible, and just,'”

This is the Law Commission of Canada’s mission statement, Jeff. It is why they began and why they were dismantled by the Conservative government. The tried to bring citizens into the legal debate and to make the law more accessible and understandable to every citizen.

“the Law Commission of Canada released a report, Beyond Conjugality, calling for fundamental revisions in the law to honor and support all caring and interdependent personal adult relationships, regardless of whether or not the relationships are conjugal in nature.”

What do you not understand about that, Jeff? I stated above why TLCOC released this report. You see it as gays wanting polygamy. There is nothing in the report calling for legalization of polygamy.

Why do you hate the idea of non-sexual people having protections that are not available to them, just because they don’t have sex with each other?

“It becomes understandable why your homosexuality prevents you from getting a job when it becomes more and more obvious how much it affects your ability to comprehend reality — and your willingness to make up excuses, expecting people to believe you because you’re gay.”

Why are you so obsessed with sex? I could understand if you were obsessed with your own sex life, but you throw wild accusations at anyone who disagree with you and they all range from gays being pedos, to having public sex. Yet, when confronted with proven Republican shenanigans and the fact that a large number of Republicans are pedos, you try to change the subject and claim Canadian gay activists want polygamy.

Here’s a list of Republican pedos, Jeff. Read it and weep for the party you support:

“Ah, but you see, Paul, you only consider them “nauseating” when it’s Republicans.”

Yes, because Republicans seem to have a monopoly on public sex, child molestation, adultery and all the other vices you find repugnant in others.

“When it’s Democrat politicians having sex with teenagers who are their subordinates, you make up excuses about how it’s ‘consensual’.”

As I responded to Whats-His-Name in the above response to his comment:

“I based my statement on what I read online. It’s an old case and the majority of the sites i found discussing the situation were anti-gay/anti-Dem websites. I only found a few impartial sites that discussed the facts of the case and they were rather thin.”

From 247Gay.com:

“At the time, Studds called the relationship with the teenage page, which included a trip to Europe, ‘a very serious error in judgment.’ But he did not apologize and defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult. The former page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him.”

Studds admitted it was wrong, but cons ignore that fact. The page supported Studds, but the cons ignore that fact. You are so lacking in evidence against liberals, that you latch onto something that happened decades ago, while ignoring the feeding frenzy of degeneracy in your own backyard, Jeff.

Even in Studds death, we heard the cons wails and lamentations about something he did–apparently consensually–decades ago, while ignoring Foley’s harassment of teenagers.

“When it’s Democrats supporting the FMA and state constitutional amendments, as well as liberal gays like yourself supporting them and giving them money, you call it ‘fighting for your freedoms’.”

And what do you call it, Jeff, when you support a president who wants a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage, when you support governors who reject bills supporting civil unions and when you support states who implement constitutional amendments banning any kind of legal recognition of ss relationships?

“When it’s Democrats having public sex and leaving c*m all over public restrooms for people to step or sit in,”

Please provide an example of a Dem doing this, Jeff. I think you’ve confused Dems, with married Republicans who leave their wives at home, while they go to public toilets and proposition undercover cops.

“or dressing up their two-year-olds in fetish gear and taking them to sex fairs,”

What about anti-choice parents who take their children to anti-choice rallies and make them carry signs featuring gory images and put them in danger in those crowds? What about anti-gay parents who describe to their own children and the children of other parents, what adults do in bed?

“or sexually harassing their coworkers and demanding sex from them, you claim that’s just expressing ‘the right to love whom they choose, live as they choose and identify as they choose’.”

Hmm…I’m fairly certain even a moron will be able to see that you took a comment of mine out of context, Jeff. All you’ve done with the above comment is demonstrate your desperateness in this debate.

“In short, since you don’t see anything ‘nauseating’ about those behaviors when Democrats do them, I have very little reason to believe that you actually consider them to be nauseating”

Please provide examples of Dems doing those things, Jeff. The Gary Studds case happened decades ago; there have been no cases of married Dems getting caught propositioning police in public toilets; those parents who took their kid to the FSF have never identified their political beliefs; Bonnie Bleskachek has never identified as Dem, or liberal. Your entire argument is based on baseless assumptions backed up by your hatred of non-homocons.

“and much more to believe that you’re just indulging in hypocritical behavior to reinforce your beliefs.”

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Now that you’ve been formally introduced…

“And to demonstrate your ideological blindness, I contrast what I wrote with your claim that I support Larry Craig or Mark Foley’s behavior.”

You have yet to denounce anything a Republican has done, Jeff. All you do is shout, “DEMS DO IT TOO!”

“And I put it this way; if you truly accepted and valued Robbie and me, as you claim, you wouldn’t have to make up so many stories about us to explain why you insult and abuse us.”

You have set the standard, I’m merely following suit. People who claim others are throwing mud, usually have muddy hands, Jeff.

Assuming you can still read this, however, I don’t think it’s at all “drama queen” to be affronted when someone is willing to take advantage of a forum where they’ve been permitted open discussion and can’t be bothered to know the name of the host–when it’s plastered all over the page.

I was nothing but respectful to you until you referred to me as “what’s-his-name.” You were anything but respectful.

I can’t have this argument anymore. I’d just end up writing a 300 word comment trying to correct every single error in Paul’s post to me. Again.

When the method of debate is to basically throw as much erroneous and unfounded crap as you can at someone just to see if any of it will stick, there’s no point.

Paul, I seriously think you’re mistaking me for someone else. You keep putting these arguments and thoughts on me that aren’t anywhere near what I think. I think you see “homocon” and decide they’re all alike, they all must think the same things, and they all must be a certain way.”

Which makes you a bigot, btw.

And besides, I’m invoking the Gay Godwin Law. Once “internalized homophobia” appears, the conversation is over.

“Assuming you can still read this, however, I don’t think it’s at all ‘drama queen’ to be affronted when someone is willing to take advantage of a forum where they’ve been permitted open discussion and can’t be bothered to know the name of the host–when it’s plastered all over the page.”

Yes it is.

“I was nothing but respectful to you until you referred to me as ‘what’s-his-name.’ You were anything but respectful.”

I’ve shown you every courtesy possible. I didn’t respond to your comments until you challenged me to. This is your turf, so I was refraining from arguing with you. But you weren’t happy with that arrangement, so you challenged me to debate your points. Now you don’t like the ramifications of that challenge, so you’ve banned me. Childish.

I wrote whats-his-name because I didn’t want you to get your panties in a bunch. Clearly, you put them on in that condition, so there’s nothing I can do to stop it.

Now you can all sit here and have your little circle jerk of undifferentiated opinions. Enjoy.

Yours,
Paul Raposo

My response:

I’ve shown you every courtesy possible. I didn’t respond to your comments until you challenged me to. This is your turf, so I was refraining from arguing with you. But you weren’t happy with that arrangement, so you challenged me to debate your points. Now you don’t like the ramifications of that challenge, so you’ve banned me. Childish.

If I didn’t wish for you to respond to my comments I’d have not written them in the first place. Ignoring them was rude, despite your painting it as somehow courteous. And while your first instinct is evidently to “argue,” as you say, I was attempting a discussion.

And I’ve banned you not because of any “ramifications”–frankly, your responses to my comments were weak, at best, and hardly anything to be concerned about–but rather because not only did you misspell my name, but when I pointed it out you couldn’t be bothered to refer to me correctly and instead waved it off and called me “what’s his name.” That’s purposefully disrespectful.

As for the “little circle jerk of undifferentiated opinions,” clearly you’ve not seen me rail against both Robbie and NDT on their respective blogs, and my own. My disagreement with Robbie over the necessity of hate-crimes laws (which I highly favor while he disallows any validity to them) was legendary and almost caused a permanent rift between us.

I’m not a Republican, and not a Democrat. You can read my opinions on that elsewhere in the blog. I get told off and yelled at all of the time and it really doesn’t bother me that much. Being summarily dismissed as somehow unimportant or irrelevant on my own blog–now that pisses me off.

I’m all about discussion, Paul. I don’t agree with many things that NDT says, and didn’t agree with some of what you said, but I think the discussion is the only healthy way for human beings to come to some kind of accord. That’s why I let it go on.

If you can manage that without being deliberately rude to me, then I’ll unban you.

I hate to say it, but getting upset to the point of banning someone because they didn’t spell your name right or referred to you as “What’s-His-Name” is pretty over the top. Who was it in your past that forgot your name and got you this upset? It seems clear that you are experiencing that trauma in relation to this fairly innocuous incident.

And for the record, I was really enjoying the way that Paul responded point-for-point and fed NDT’s own medicine right back to him. I don’t think he was any more rude or insulting than the individuals he was responding to. He disagrees strongly with them yet was far more civil and measured in his responses than I think I could have been.

You see ted, the thing is, as much as you and I may disagree on some things, at least you’re being polite about it. Frankly, though, if someone can’t be bothered to get my name right then they have no business posting 6,000 words of comments on my blog.

I didn’t say anything about Paul being rude to NDT or Robbie. They can take care of themselves. And I can take people being rude. But being dismissive of me on my own blog is just the height of arrogance. And frankly I’m the only one allowed to be quite that arrogant around here. 🙂

And for the record, I’ve never banned anyone else from here. And I hadn’t planned on ever doing it in the first place. But I’m not about to be walked all over by some arrogant jackass who thinks they’re being considerate by ignoring my comments to them.

I don’t know Ted. I don’t know if I would have banned him, as I don’t have a blog (but been thinking abou it). But when I saw the What’s His Name crap, I thought it was pretty rude, and it takes a lot for me to say it. But that wasn’t even half of it. But maybe it’s me that I don’t take kindly being called a douchebag, and less so if it was my blog. In any case, it was not “pretty over the top.”

It’s fine that you enjoyed the point-for-point response. Too bad he tainted his own arguments with his over the top behavior.

And I don’t get the love or even neutral reactions for Gerry Studds, regardless of the scoreboard of Republican and Democrat wrongful sexual behavior. Legal or not, he was wrong for his actions with an underage page.

My interpretation was that he used “what’s-his-name” rather tongue-in-cheek after being lambasted for the misspelling. It did not come across as an insubordinate insult to me, though obviously it did to Jamie.

And he came back with “douchebag” after being called “dipshit.” I don’t believe he would have used that term otherwise. If Jamie doesn’t take kindly to that sort of provocation, then why should Paul?

He was reacting to some stinging things that were said to him. That’s why I thought that banning him was over the top.

Are you kidding me? All I said was, “Lastly, if you can’t be bothered to spell my name right . . .” That was a pretty gentle nudge–not harsh at all. Then he returns with the, “What’s-his-name” crap. If someone can’t be bothered to know the name of the person whose blog they’re peppering with opinions, they’re pretty much a dipshit by definition, ted. THEN he proceeds to tell me that he didn’t misspell my name when he DID and calls ME a douchebag for being the one who pays attention.